Your Councillors


18/501181 - VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 10, 16 AND 17 OF

APPLICATION 16/508659/FULL (DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING

AND ERECTION OF B8 WAREHOUSE BUILDING WITH ANCILLARY

OFFICES, DOCK LEVELLERS, ACCESS, PARKING AND LANDSCAPING

INCLUDING THE CREATION OF NEW WOODLAND AND ATTENUATION

POND) - LAND SOUTH OF REDWALL LANE, LINTON, KENT

 

All Members stated that they had been lobbied.

The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the

Head of Planning and Development.

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that a further letter

of objection had been received, the main points being:

Questioning the conclusion that the principle of the development was

established as the Committee had made its decision on the basis of

original condition 10 which it was now proposed to amend;

Expressing concern that the report did not refer to improvements

required to increase capacity at Linton Crossroads and that no

reference was made to the cumulative impact on traffic due to the

recent grant of planning permission for a new medical centre in Heath

Road; and

Commenting that the report contained no traffic statistics and there

was a failure to recognise the impact of the development beyond the

immediate locality.

 

Councillor Cresswell of Linton Parish Council, Mr Allen, for the applicant,

and Councillor Fermor (Visiting Member) addressed the meeting.

During the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that permission be

granted subject to the conditions and informative set out in the report, as

amended by the urgent update report, with the amendment of the noise

conditions to require compliance with BS4142 at all times, and that Kent

County Council be asked to be a signatory (by way of a Deed of Variation)

to the HGV routing requirements of the S106 agreement for application

16/508659, which would apply to this permission, as this is not

enforceable by the Local Planning Authority. It was also suggested that

priority should be given to signage in regard to any mitigation from the

Traffic Displacement Contribution (section 5 of Schedule 2 to the S106).

An amendment was moved, seconded and carried that consideration of

this application be deferred to enable further negotiations with the

applicant regarding the redrafting of condition 10 (formerly 9) to specify a

time limit in months when the up to 32 in or out movements is permitted

(for example, 1 November to 31 May) with a lower threshold for the

months outside this time frame.

 

RESOLVED: That consideration of this application be deferred to enable

further negotiations with the applicant regarding the redrafting of

condition 10 (formerly 9) to specify a time limit in months when the up to

32 in or out movements is permitted (for example, 1 November to 31

May) with a lower threshold for the months outside this time frame.

 

Voting: 6 For 5 Against 1 Abstention

Our A-Z

If you cannot find what you are looking for in our search facility, you can use our A-Z index to find the service you require.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

X

Y

Z